Open seat for governor in 2010? How did Scutari learn that Munsil and Goldwater agreed to one term? That's the only way that the Insider could be accurate...unless...do you think that Chip has made an assumption about the status of the current race?

Does he simply assume that the race is over--Janet will be re-elected and termed out in 2010? Does the Republic's political reporter assume that the Republicans don't have a chance? More importantly, is that assumption reflected in the Republic's coverage of the race?

That would explain a lot.

Prom Dates, Debt Financing and Hardball

The Arizona Daily Star has crossed over a bright line.

Later this week it is expected to get to the floor of the Senate, but that's up to Senate President Ken Bennett, who is juggling the views of people with differing opinions — among them his policy adviser, Mark Swenson, who thinks the measure is unconstitutional. Lawyers for the House and Senate think it's legal.

Bennett must weigh Tucson's broad business and political support against Swenson's concerns...

Did you catch it? This time of year, everyone loves to grumble about House and Senate Staff--especially about Mark Swenson. But the Star has crossed the bounds of good behavior by singling Swenson out in an editorial.

The Legislative Session is like the prom. The Legislators are good girls who are trying to enjoy the dance, get good grades and make sure they do the right thing. The lobbyists who work for private industry and increasingly, cities, universities, state agencies and other special interests equate to the rapacious prom dates who only want one thing. Staff act as chaperones.

"Golly, I would love to step out back and have a beer, but you see that guy over there? He's a friend of my dad and he would catch us, so we had better stay inside where it's nice and light."

Without staff, bills would go through the process like George Patton through a goose. All of those bills have money on them and they all do wonderful things...but they can't all pass. Some staffer has to say, hey, that bill can't go because it has too much money on it

Swenson plays that roll in the Senate. Bennett needs him as an excuse...and the world is better off if he's at the prom.

Conventional Wisdom on Graf Changing

I've been saying for months that the immigration issue is going to play so big in District 8 that Graf's chances against Weiss or Giffords are being seriously underestimated. It looks like the Washington folks are starting to think the same thing.

Hotline is the ultimate insider when it comes to Washington political gossip and the folks there have begun to reconsider Graf's chances.

Rep. Chris Shays' (R-CT 04) comments on immigration last week could be a warning sign for candidates far from the border. He said that, after hearing from constituents, he's taken a more hard-line stance on border security. What's notable is that Shays represents a culturally liberal, affluent Connecticut suburb -- a district where immigration hasn't been a top issue.

Until recently, conventional wisdom held that GOPers would be best-served nominating candidates with more moderate views on border security. Under that logic, immigration hardliner Randy Graf would jeopardize GOPers' ability to hold onto AZ 08. Shays' statement indicates the CW on border security may be changing. In IA 01 immigration is the dominant theme in the GOP primary, but Dems have barely addressed the issue. Could some Dems find themselves vulnerable if they fail to talk tough on immigration? [JOSH KRAUSHAAR]

May 30, 2006

Tucson Wants One Billion Dollars

Every evening, when I spend $100 at Costco, $5.60 goes to the state. They blow most of it on education, health care and stuff like that. And, of course, significant portion is shared with the cities in the form of state shared revenue.

One day an evil genius invented a gimmick called "Tax Increment Financing." It goes something like this.

"Mr. Legislator, I want to build a big retail project in the barrio (or on a toxic waste dump, in a river bed etc.) But I can't seem to get anyone to finance it. If this project is successful, then the state will automatically collect $5 of every hundred dollars that's spent on trinkets, ticket sales, Hummers etc. Since the project hasn't been built yet the state currently collects nothing on this abandoned property. How about for the first 10 years, you let me keep the 5.6% that otherwise would have gone to the state and I'll use it to finance the project?

After all...the state isn't getting anything for that land now...so it's not like you are really giving me the money."

So the project is Financed by the Incremental Taxes...Tax Increment Financing. Get it?

OK, you may think that it's a good idea or not, but let's agree on one thing...the "I" is for Incremental.

The City of Tucson won approval for a TIF project called "Rio Nuevo" and then played a little trick with the boundaries. Here's how, the Star described it.

The boundary looks like a thermometer. Downtown is the circle at the bottom. The top of the thermometer is a straight line going East on Broadway. The line is just wide enough to take in El Con and Park Place malls. The idea was to collect sales taxes generated by the malls and use the funds to build an arts and entertainment district Downtown.

Isn't that clever? They got the project approved and then raised the revenue by drawing a narrow line half way across the city so that the TIF district included two 20-year-old malls. That little trick allows them to siphon existing revenue out of the state budget.

The paper was pretty honest about it.

More broadly, the idea was to take sales taxes that were collected locally and invest them in local projects.

I'm hoping to do that with my $5 at Costco. I think I'll keep the money and when the Department of Revenue calls, I'll say that I'm going to spend the money on stuff that I want to buy. Or perhaps I'll say.

More broadly, the idea was to take sales taxes that were collected locally and invest them in local projects.

I wonder how I will use my one phone call.

But even with gerrymandering, the Tucson project isn't viable.

Last year, the city went back to the Legislature and asked that the life-span of the TIF be extended from 10 years to 40. The city did not ask that the boundary for the TIF district be redrawn. It said give us more time, because all these projects are more expensive and more complex than we originally thought.

Frankly, I'm shocked. You mean the projects are more expensive and more complex than we originally thought? Next you are going to tell me that the new Phoenix Convention Center is over budget and Light Rail is behind schedule.

The Star has changed tactics and is now admitting the full price tag of the proposal, and asserts that the only reason Legislators could oppose it is that they don't like Tucson.

Sadly, what we saw in recent weeks as the fight over tax increment financing in Tucson unfolded in the Capitol was a script that went something like this: "If we (we being some powerful legislators from Maricopa County) allow this bill to get passed, over the next 30 years Tucson will get to suck away $1 billion in state sales taxes that could have been spent in Phoenix."

Dude, it's a BILLION DOLLARS.

If the community happens to be in Southern Arizona, where Democrats outnumber Republicans, there is all the more reason for Republican-dominated Maricopa County to ignore it.

We cannot see that there is any other reasonable explanation for the reluctance of the Legislature to approve the Tucson TIF bill.

That's right, there couldn't be any other reason why those nasty Phoenix boys--like Ken Bennett (R) Prescott--wouldn't want to write a billion dollar check.

My son turns 14 next month. I love him dearly, but he's not getting a Mercedes. I know that he will think that I don't love him, and if he had friends at the Star, they would be telling everyone in the state that I'm a bad dad, but he still doesn't get the Mercedes.

Buying him a Mercedes wouldn't make me a good dad, and letting Tucson keep a billion dollars doesn't make a good Legislator...no matter what the Star thinks.

Now if the billion dollars was going to be used to build a giant "laser,"...that might be different.

To the last, I grapple with thee;

I've had a lot of response to my post on Jon Kamman's obsession with Bob Stump. This one was typical.

I am glad to see that my 'craziness' barometer was not out of wack when I read this article. I was similarly struck by the banality of the
whole exercise. I think the article did a good job of outlining the
issue of what happens to money after a candidate dies, leaves office or
loses a race. At the same time, I couldn't join the authors angst about
the few bucks left in Bob Stump's bank account.

Thank you for confirming that the feeling of 'craziness' I had in
reading the article was legitimate.

Ron

Do As I Say...

Here's an interesting point about John McCain's Presidential run.

JOHN McCain undeclared but ubiquitous presidential campaign will produce a delicious moment when he announces, as he surely will, that he will not participate in the public funding system for presidential primaries. And if he is nominated, he and his Democratic opponent probably will be the first nominees since 1972 to rely on private money in the general election campaign.

There are two compounded ironies. First, the mantra of campaign reformers is that there is too much money in politics. But McCain will shun public funding because it provides too little money. He can raise much more from private interests. (But not from special interests, which are interests McCain disapproves of.) Second, the reformers revere the McCain-Feingold legislation that expanded government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of political speech. But McCain-Feingold is one important reason why the public funding system is collapsing.

May 26, 2006

Things fall apart; the Centre cannot hold

It looks like the southern Arizona Democratic Party has become engaged in a full blown civil war.

Here's Tedski's take on it.

I guess we have ourselves a trend. You may remember that last week a letter anonymously went out from a couple of brave souls trashing Councilmember José Ibarra. This week, some other group of oh so brave souls are trashing Senator Gabrielle Giffords.

Oh, but they aren't anonymous...they have a name, "Real Democrats for Real Democrats."

Once again, they dig up the phony issue about Giffords's choice of campaign chairs. Giffords's original chairs were Dorothy Finley and Eddie Basha. When she first picked Basha, I heard grousing that he was anti-labor. Then, she dropped Basha. The complaint was then that she was selling out to that gawdawful special interest, organized labor.

Since Basha is gone and Finley is now backing Huffman, I think Gabby has two fewer things to worry about.

A Tale full of Sound and Furry

I used to pick up my kids from kindergarten and they would regale me with breathless tales about some event in their day--twenty minute stories that boiled down to "Johnny dropped his Crayon and I picked it up." Nothing really happened, but they sure were excited about it. Kids are so cute.

Most kids grow out of that stage. Adults don't get too many chances to spend 2,000 words breathlessly describing a meaningless event.

So, it was with great anticipation that I sat down to read Jon Kamman's 2,000 word, A1 above the fold, story about Lisa Atkins and Bob Stump. After all, Kamman is an award-winning reporter, he's married to a reporter and he's one of the Republic's most experienced writers.

Furthermore, the Republic doesn't give much ink to scandals. When the Clean Elections Director recommended that Gov. Napolitano's campaign be audited for possible spending violations, the Republic only invested a few hundred words on B7.

So I knew this would be interesting. Sure enough, it opened like a mystery novel.

It started as a question about a political oddity:

Why is U.S. Rep. Bob Stump's campaign fund sitting untouched with more than $58,000 in the bank four years after he announced his retirement from Congress and nearly three years after he died?

Outstanding, I love a good mystery. There's noting better than brewing a couple espressos on a Saturday morning and reading a good political thriller.

In the case of the Stump and Atkins accounts, the dollar amounts of the inaccuracies are relatively small, but the central issues remain: Can the financial reports filed by campaign committees be trusted and is Federal Election Commission enforcement adequate?

Wait a second. The amounts are small, Congressman Stump has been out of congress for 4 years and dead for 3 years. Lisa Atkins lost her bid for Congress and is working in the private sector. Why is this a story?

The questions are arising with increasing urgency because of admissions by ex-lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff that he sought to buy political influence with millions of dollars of contributions, mostly funneled from Indian tribes to members of Congress. Some politicians failed to report some of the contributions.

Atkins said tracking down why the bank balance in the Stump account is, in rounded terms, $59,700 instead of the $58,500 reported to the Federal Election Commission for 18 months may require searching through years of reports.

After Stump died in June 2003, his campaign account donated $75,000 to a drive to endow a Bob Stump Chair in Cultural History at ASU's West campus.

What? Jack Abramoff stole millions of dollars so Jon Kamman wants the FEC to invest its limited resources to track down a $1,200 rounding error in the account of a Congressman who has been dead for 3 years? That despite the fact the the money is being donated to charity?

Is that the purpose of the is 2,000 word A1 above the fold story?

Kamman continues:

In interviews, Atkins emphasized...

Interviews? Plural? As in more than one? Lisa Atkins worked for Bob Stump for 26 years, handled all of his financial reports and after he passed away worked with his widow to establish a charitable endowment with his excess contributions and somewhere along the line one of the reports picked up a rounding error that Jon Kamman wants the FEC to investigate because after all, Jack Abramoff stole millions of dollars and Kamman had to interview her more than once? What the heck did he talk about? Leave the woman alone.

Call Me Jon

Captain Kamman takes us on a long voyage in his attempt to grapple with the ghost of Bob Stump. Along the way we encounter the Challenger Center, Peoria finances and a host of Treasurers, living and dead. With no apparent sense of irony, Kamman concludes that the Treasurers aren't doing their job. The positions are unpaid.

The length of this labyrinthine journey makes it clear that Kamman has spent hundreds of hours poring over years of reports filed by Stump and Atkins.

A litany of problems was found in The Arizona Republic's review of more than 40 Stump and Atkins financial reports filed periodically with the commission.

But what has he found? Like Geraldo Rivera standing in front of Al Copone's empty safe on live TV, Kamman discovers a handful of trivial errors in the old reports of a dead former Congressman and the one-time aide who tried to succeed him.

It is a testament to Kamman's prestige within the paper that the Republic ran the story at all, yet it appeared A1 above the fold.

Eventually Kamman tries to juice up the story by disclosing that Atkins has leftover debt from her Congressional run. The consultants didn't recall the debt and have no intention of trying to collect it. This means that Atkins will (gasp) correct past reports, submit a debt-settlement plan to the Federal Election Commission and apply for permission to close the account.

It sounds like a scene from the movie Office Space.

Yeah. It's just that we're putting new coversheets on all the TPS reports "before" they go out now. So if you could just remember to do that from now on, that'd be great. All right!

Not The First Time

This isn't the first time that Jon Kamman has gone off half cocked on Bob Stump.

In August of 2001, Kamman wrote a series of stories about Bob Stump's residence. It started on shaky ground and went down from there.

Stump, 74, confirmed in an impromptu interview at his farm that he and gubernatorial aide Nancy Baehre, 62, were married two weeks ago in Gila Bend, formalizing a 20-year relationship.

Yeah, right. Jon Kamman drove uninvited to Bob Stump's farm in Tolleson and knocked on the door for an "impromptu interview" to see if he had gotten married.

While he was there he just happened to ask about Stump's residency. Now residency is a matter of intent. After all, congressmen spend most of their time in Washington and there is no requirement that they live in their district.

Stump responded that the farm was his place of business.

BOOM.

Kamman jumped on that statement and claimed that Stump didn't really live on the farm, so he had been voting in the wrong precinct for 41 years.

From late August to mid October, Jon Kamman wrote seven articles totaling 4,000 words--many of which were on A1--questioning the legal ramifications of Bob Stump saying that the farm that he had owned his entire life was his "business." Eventually Stump clarified what we knew all along.

"The farm is my home ... my voting residence and the place to which I return, regardless of the number of places I live and sleep for the time being," Stump, 74, said under oath.

Stump didn't run for re-election. Two years after the Kamman "impromptu interview" Stump died of a rare blood disorder.

Here's how the Republic Editorial Board described him.

But his closeness to the land, his love of his country, his decency and honesty stand out. He was as simple and enduring as the breakfast he ate every day: Grits, two eggs over easy and whole wheat bread.

An American breakfast. An American man.

Yet four years after Stump left office and three years after his death, Jon Kamman gets one last shot...one more A1 above the fold breathless story about Bob Stump.

It is only in retrospect that we can look at Jon Kamman's coverage of Bob Stump and realize, in the words of the Bard that:

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

May 25, 2006

Good Help is Hard to Find

District 8 Democratic contender Gabrielle Giffords started her race with all the right moves. Her resignation from the Senate made it clear that she was serious about the race; she opened an early money lead and announced an impressive duo as her co-chairs.

The campaign is off and running. I am blessed by help from my dear friends Eddie Basha and Dorothy Finley, who serve as honorary co-chairs.

Basha is a Democratic icon and Finley is a prominent Pima County Republican. That's an impressive combination.

Basha's name fell off the list almost immediately. Speculation about his short tenure as chairman centers around Gabby caving to labor union protests about his non-union stores. Basha faces stiff competition from Wal-Mart (which he once famously compared to Nazis) so he can't be expected to unionize simply to curry favor with the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately wing of the Democratic Party.

Well at least Gabby still has Finley. Maybe.

I wonder if Gabby's camp has learned that Finley just wrote a $1,000 check to Giffords' opponent Steve Huffman.

I guess she's gonna need a couple new Chairmen.

Republic Publisher discusses Benji

Earlier this week, I told the story of a child named Benji showing up at my door with his "adult sponsor" to see if I would buy a subscription to the Republic so he could go to camp. (If you haven't read the initial story, this one's not going to make much sense, so skip down the May 22.)

Publisher John Zidich sent this general denial.

Greg,

Simply put we don't sell the paper this way. In fact, most of the
comments made by the "sponsor" or your interpretation of how the business works is inaccurate.

I called the circulation department and eventually tracked down a sales manager who told me that the Republic is aware that one of their venders has salesmen who use the send-a-kid-to-camp technique. The manager doesn't like it because the subscribers aren't as interested in buying a paper as they are sending a kid to camp.

I told the manager about the $5 that I gave to Benji and the adult sponsor's claim that the money would be used for subscriptions that would be given to charity. The manager assured me that this can't happen because the Republic verifies the addresses of each new subscriber. We chatted about a few more details and I thanked him for his time.

To his credit, the manager called me back within about a minute and asked me about the contribution. He didn't think it was acceptable for the door to door solicitors to accept charitable contributions and he's going to look into it.

I called the publisher Mr. Zidich and related the details of my call with the sales manager. He assured me that the Republic verifies each new subscriber and the Audit Bureau of Circulation audits the addresses of the subscribers to ensure that there are no phantom papers. He doesn't think that my $5 went to buy a subscription that was donated to a charity. In fact, he believes that their controls are so tight that this couldn't happen. He thinks my $5 is in someone's pocket. I hope it is in Benji's pocket.

Are the accounting controls really that tight? If the adult sponsor was just going to keep the money, why would he construct an elaborate story about the money going for subscriptions that are then donated to charity? If he was going to lie, why not just say that Benji could keep the money.

Does he get enough incentive that he would prefer to use the money for phantom subscriptions than to keep the cash? And then does he have a way to make fool the auditors?

The publisher doesn't seem to think so.

Interestingly, Mr. Zidich didn't share his sales manager's concern about children selling subscriptions. He indicated that he had been a paper carrier and that as long as the vendor and boy stayed on the script and only offered packages that the Republic provided, it was fine.

I agree. Voluntary transactions benefit both parties--selling papers, sewing soccer balls, whatever, put the little urchins to work. No X Box until you finish stitching that new pair of Air Jordans...my gosh, the paper is run by Republicans. Who would have guess it?

AZGOP letter to Clean Elections...Wow.

Dear Mr. Lang:

I serve as the Executive Director to the Arizona State Republican Party (AZGOP). In that capacity, and on behalf of the AZGOP, this letter serves as the AZGOP’s reply in opposition to the May 4, 2006, verified letter response submitted to the Commission by attorney Andrew S. Gordon on behalf of his clients, candidate Janet Napolitano and the Janet Napolitano 2006 Committee (collectively referred to as “Ms. Napolitano”). Ms. Napolitano’s response, as you are aware, addresses the Complaint filed with the Commission on April 24, 2006, by the AZGOP

The AZGOP respectfully submits that a reasonable and objective application of Arizona election law to the currently known facts amply establishes that Ms. Napolitano violated the letter and spirit of the law. The only remaining question centers on the appropriate remedy for the violation, and whether the Commission is willing to apply Arizona election law equally to all people regardless of their position or power.

The AZGOP understands that the Commission’s decision concerning the appropriate remedy to impose on any candidate for a violation is always a difficult burden for the Commission. It is difficult enough to decide on an equitable remedy to impose for an election violation when it is made by a private citizen or “average Joe” running for office, or even a sitting state legislator. It is also, no doubt, a far more difficult decision and burden when deciding on the remedy to impose on a powerful incumbent seeking reelection to the highest office in Arizona. This is, however, as it is so often said, a “nation of laws.” No person is above the law. The AZGOP, therefore, respectfully urges the Commission to act fairly and responsibly on this matter without regard to consideration of rank or privilege.

Although the AZGOP believes that Ms. Napolitano has violated Arizona election law, the AZGOP understands that this is a question that the Commission must decide for itself. To help the Commission decide, the AZGOP wishes to raise several points about the response submitted by Ms. Napolitano and requests that the Commission consider the same.

THE CURRENTLY KNOWN UNDISPUTED FACTS

As an initial matter, it may be helpful for the Commission to understand what currently known facts are not disputed in this matter. These undisputed facts are as follows:

· Consultant IWS engaged in “discussions and planning done for launching the campaign prior to filing the [Ms. Napolitano] Statement of Organization.” (Response at pg. 2)

· IWS designed and built a campaign website for Ms. Napolitano before the March 1, 2006 filing of Ms. Napolitano’s Statement of Organization. (Response at pg. 2, and attached Letter of Agreement for Internet Consulting and Related Services)

· IWS assembled email addresses for Ms. Napolitano’s campaign before the March 1, 2006 filing of Ms. Napolitano’s Statement of Organization. (Response at pg. 6)

· Political committees must register before making expenditures. (Response at pg. 2)

· Ms. Napolitano “may not incur debt before receiving Commission funding.” (Response at pg. 4, and attached Commission publication entitled “Campaign Expenditures”).

· IWS designed and built website for Ms. Napolitano before her campaign was up and running on March 1, 2006, the day her Statement of Organization was filed.

· IWS assembled email addresses and used the same on March 1, 2006 in a “blast” email to numerous people. This was done for, and on behalf of, Ms. Napolitano’s campaign.

· Ms. Napolitano filed her Statement of Organization “on the morning of March 1^st.” (Response at pg. 5)

Based on the foregoing, the AZGOP submits that there is no question that a substantial and costly amount of high-value work was performed by IWS for Ms. Napolitano before she filed her Statement of Organization on March 1, 2006. As such, the question presented is whether Ms. Napolitano incurred a debt before the filing, and/or whether she made an “expenditure” before the filing.

THE VIOLATION OF ARIZONA ELECTION LAW.

Arizona statute 16-901(8) broadly defines the term “expenditure.” More specifically, the term “expenditure” includes “any… contract, promise or agreement to make an expenditure resulting in an extension of credit….”

In reliance on a contract between her committee and IWS signed after the filing of her Statement of Organization, Ms. Napolitano claims she violated no law because “(1) there was no pre-filing promise obligating the campaign for payment and (2) this was a regularly recurring administrative expense.” (Response at pg. 6). This statement is problematic for several reasons.

First, there are no affidavits, or Rule (80)(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P, declarations made under penalty of perjury, from IWS consultant Max Fose, campaign official Noah Kroloff, or any other person plainly stating to the effect that there was no promise, “understanding,” or agreement that IWS would be compensated or hired in the future. As you are aware, a “contract, promise or agreement” can be made orally. Often mere “intimations” between parties about a “possible” course of action can lead to obligations that are found enforceable under the law. A contract, promise or agreement need not be in writing to be binding. Indeed, there is an entire body of contract law concerning the enforcement of “understandings” between parties that are never reduced to writing. (See, e.g., Promissory Estoppel RAJI (3d) at Contracts 28; Quantum Meruit RAJI (3d) at Contracts 24)

Second, it is difficult to believe that IWS/Fose rendered the stated services to Ms. Napolitano for free, and without any expectation, understanding, or intimation of receiving future payment or a contract. Perhaps he was providing free service, but it seems unlikely and defies common sense.

Third, the “conditions” in the admitted understanding between Ms. Napolitano and IWS are illusory. Ms. Napolitano’s response states that “prior to filing the Statement of Organization, the vendor [IWS/Fose] understood that if Governor Napolitano choose not to run for reelection or the campaign decided not to use IWS’ services, any preparatory or planning work done by IWS would be without compensation.” The response, however, contains no evidence from IWS that this is a sworn fact. Moreover, the response contains no evidence that Ms. Napolitano ever seriously considered not running for reelection. This “condition,” therefore, was, in fact, non-existent. The response also contains no evidence that Ms. Napolitano was considering any other potential vendors for the design and creation of a campaign website, or the preparation for a broadcast email strategy. This “condition,” therefore, was also non-existent. Again, the “conditions” were illusory.

Fourth, even by her own admission, Ms. Napolitano concedes that IWS understood it would be paid if: (1) she ran for re-election, and (2) if she ended up using IWS’ services. Common sense tells us that she made those decisions before filing her March 1, 2006 Statement of Organization and simultaneously authorizing the debut of her IWS designed website and launching of the “blast” emails. The AZGOP, therefore, submits that even under her own statement, Ms. Napolitano incurred a debt to IWS/Fose before her organizational filing, and made an “expenditure” as defined by statute.

Fifth, regardless of whether the agreement with IWS/Fose, whether oral and then later reduced to writing, was a “regularly recurring administrative expense,” a debt was incurred before her organization was formed, and an “expenditure” took place (i.e., an extension of credit).

A reasonable application of the law to the facts show that Ms. Napolitano violated the law by incurring debt and making an expenditure before she formed her campaign committee.

THE CURRENTLY KNOWN FACTS WARRANT A FULL INVESTIGATION

If the Commission has any doubt that Ms. Napolitano violated the law, it is incumbent upon it to investigate the matter and independently determine the facts so it may make a fair and impartial decision on whether a violation occurred, and if so, what to do about it. The Clean Elections Act was passed, in part, because citizens believed that incumbents have “an unhealthy advantage over challengers” and the public lacks “confidence in the integrity of public officials.” A.R.S. § 16-940(B) (2) and (5). Ms. Napolitano’s actions are squarely within the orbit of deeds that the Clean Elections Act was designed, and passed by voters, to protect against.

An investigation is also important, if not essential, to determine whether Ms. Napolitano’s violation was done with knowledge or “knowingly.” This is important because a “knowing violation of section 16-941” triggers certain penalties. Also, a person who “knowingly violates section 16-941 is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.”

The Commission has the broad authority to subpoena witnesses, subpoena documents, compel testimony, administer oaths and affirmative, and take evidence. A.R.S. § 16-956 (B). The Commission needs to exercise this authority to determine the truth. Again, the position and power of the person subject to a Complaint should not dictate whether an investigation takes place.

THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION

The AZGOP submits that based on the currently known facts a violation occurred. The available remedies and sanctions for a violation are covered by statute.

A.R.S. § 16-942(C) provides the most serious penalty. As an initial matter, the incurring of a debt or the making of an expenditure by a “clean candidate” before the filing of her Statement of Organization is an undisputable violation of A.R.S. § 16-941. (See 16-941(A) (2), (3) and (5)). Under A.R.S. § 16-942(C ) the Commission has authority to disqualify Ms. Napolitano as a candidate for governor. This is the political “death penalty.” However, this same section also provides for an alternative whereby the Commission has the authority to disqualify Ms. Napolitano from receiving public monies as a “clean candidate.”

A.R.S. § 16-942(A) provides another range of penalty. Under this section, the civil penalty for a violation such as made by Ms. Napolitano “shall be ten times the amount by which the expenditures…exceed the applicable limit.” A.R.S. § 16-942(A). Pursuant to the express terms of A.R.S. § 16-942(A), and the information provided by Ms. Napolitano in her response, the Commission has the authority to issue a civil sanction in the amount of $275,000 (ten times the total amount of the Napolitano-IWS contract value). Similarly, if the Commission only considers the violation to involve the initial installment payment by Ms. Napolitano to IWS ($3,055), then the penalty would be $30,550.

If a Commission investigation determines that there was a “knowing” violation of the law, then the Commission has an addition basis under the law to deny funding to a candidate and/or require the return of the issued public money. A.R.S. § 16-942(D).

THE CCEC HAS JURISIDCTION OVER THE COMMITTEE

Ms. Napolitano argues that “[t]he Commission… does not have jurisdiction over [her] alleged violations of A.R.S. § 16-902.01 .” (pg. 2.) This argument lacks merit.

The Citizens Clean Election Act, Article 2, does not stand alone and independent from Article 1. The two articles are interrelated, and inter-dependent. For example, the definitions for key terms, words or phrases that are used throughout Articles 1 and 2 are found in A.R.S. § 16-901 (in Article 1). Section 16-961 (in Article 2) or R2-20-101 (dealing with Article 2) do not redefine words already defined by the Arizona Legislature in section 16-901, but instead add new words and definitions. Indeed, A.R.S. § 16-961(A) (in Article 2) expressly states that the term “expenditures” is defined in section 16-901 (a component of Article 1).

Ms. Napolitano has filed as a “Clean Candidate,” has accepted, or will accept, taxpayer money to run her campaign, and is bound by the Commission’s decision on whether she violated any aspect of Arizona’s election laws in regards to her “clean” campaign. The Commission bears the responsibility of determining whether all candidates are treated equally under the law, or whether some candidates are “more equal” than others.

Sincerely,

Glenn Hamer

May 24, 2006

CCEC Report on the Governor's Early Start is out...and it doesn't look good for the Gov...

The Tribune ran the story on A1 this morning. Channel 5 ran it as the number 2 story last night. The Republic didn't use its own reporters to cover it, but instead chose to use the initial Associated Press story and then it was buried it on B7. I'm shocked, shocked.

Here's the CCEC Report.

Respondent acknowledges that she received the benefit of a working website on March 1, 2006 and in fact had contractual obligations to the vendor to pay for that benefit. Yet Respondent asserts that these circumstances do not constitute an "expenditure" in violation of the Act. Respondent argues that the subsequent Agreement of March 15, 2006 included an extension of credit, and only then was there an expenditure.

Respondent’s reasoning is unpersuasive and if adopted, would create an unworkable reporting system.

What goes Around (and around and around) Comes Around

Solomon argued that there is nothing new under the sun and once you have worked with state government a while, you begin to realize that he was right.

Just as every generation believes that they have invented sex, every political generation gets elected on a platform of zero based budgeting and consolidating school districts.

Occasionally an idea is implemented that proves to be such a spectacular failure that it can't possibly come back around. I mean, what kind of idiot would propose an idea that seemed clever when it was first tried but ended up being a colossal disaster.

Cue Jon Talton.

Shame on us if the proposal to bring an auto race to downtown Phoenix degenerates into regional bickering.

The Champ Car World Series event promoted by Arizona Diamondbacks co-owner Dale Jensen would be another boost for the region's downtown. Denver and San Jose already host downtown races on the circuit, which features open-wheel, Indy-style cars.

Jensen and entertainment executive Brad Yonover met with property owners at Alice Cooper'stown to promote the benefits for downtown businesses, and dispel fears it would be a repeat of the ill-fated Phoenix Grand Prix races of 1989-91. For example, there would always be a way in and out of the inner race circuit. There's resistance from Phoenix International Raceway against a potential rival.

"Ill fated "Phoenix Grand Prix? Sure, kind of like the Titanic was "ill fated" The Phoenix Grand Prix was Goddard's Gambit--then mayor Terry Goddard's attempt to put Phoenix on the map and it was pure disaster. The city spent over $8 million on improvements, traffic ground to a halt and no one came to watch the French playboys in their little cars.

The final straw was that the Chandler ostrich festival was scheduled at the same time and over 100,000 people went to see the ostriches race and like 12 people attended the Grand Prix.

Even the drivers didn't like the course, the turns were too tight, the surface was too rough. Can you believe it? Who ever heard of French guys complaining?

And can you believe it the folks are PIR are offering "resistance." Perhaps that's because PIR was built with private money...you know, from investors, not bond elections.

Of course, PIR has NASCAR--which people actually go out and watch. So naturally they offer "resistance" when the state sponsors a competing event and keeps it alive with a giant subsidy.

Since my tax dollars are going to be spent on an event that I won't watch and will make it impossible for me to get to work I'd like to offer some "resistance" myself.

But resistance is futile. What goes around comes around.

This Gate is Locked...and besides, no one goes through it.

Last week I mentioned that Howie Fischer has used his role as gatekeeper to ensure that the endorsement by 31 state Legislators didn't make it into the Tribune or the Star.

With no apparent sense of irony, Howie is now pointing out that folks don't seem to know much about the Republican candidates.

A new statewide survey shows that Don Goldwater is the leading contender among those who hope to face off in November against incumbent Democrat Janet Napolitano. But pollster Earl de Berge noted that status comes about with the backing of only 15 percent of those asked -- and just 14 percent of those likely to vote.

Yes, Howie, you locked the gate and indeed there is no traffic going through it.

May 23, 2006

Tribune Calls for Napolitano Investigation

In case you missed last Friday's editorial. Here it is.

Here are a few key paragraphs.

Anyone who wants to be a candidate must first file a “statement of organization,” essentially a declaration of intent to run. Under state law, candidates must make this statement before they raise money, enter into any spending agreements or begin collecting voter signatures to qualify for the ballot.

But on the same day that Napolitano filed her statement, an official campaign Web site appeared. Within three days, a campaign video featuring Napolitano also was posted to the site and thousands of e-mails were sent to voters requesting $5 donations so she could run again with public funding. All of this activity was coordinated by political operative Max Fose.

We’d like to give the benefit of the doubt to our governor and former state attorney general. But this situation appears suspicious to us. Political consultants don’t stay in business very long when they take public steps on behalf of candidates — such as launching Web sites and sending out e-mails — before they have a promise of payment. And Fose is an experienced operative best known for his work with Sen. John McCain.

This commission could start building a reputation for fair and impartial enforcement of the law by taking a close look at what the governor did, or by providing a compelling explanation as to why an investigation isn’t justified.

Earth to Patty

I mentioned last week that Patty Weiss sounded like a crazy aunt in a recent interview.

“Agribusinesses are going across the Mexican border selling corn cheaply. This has been going on for years, and it has put thousands of Mexican farmers out of work. Those Mexican farmers are among the thousands who cross into the US every year looking for a way to support their families.” Weiss thinks that if the US really wanted to solve the immigration problem, they’d prevent American agribusiness from undercutting Mexican trade, a subject neither state or federal lawmakers address.

What? She wants American farmers to stop selling cheap corn to Mexico so she can help Mexican farmers? Who is she trying to represent?

Then I got this letter.

Greg,

I attended a CD8 forum yesterday sponsored by the Marana Chamber of Commerce. The candidates did pretty well, communicating mostly familiar themes.

Patty Weiss did raise an interesting new campaign objective in the race. She wants the U.S. to have a manned colony on Mars before the Chinese set up theirs. I do try to keep up with politics but I did not know this was an issue for the voters of Southern Arizona.

John in Pima County

Dang, she’s triangulating so she can get ahead of the Republicans on the Martian Colonization issues. Graf and Huffman should have had their white papers on Martian Colonization out months ago. Now they will look like they are simply copying her plan.

Of course, if American Agribusinesses continues to undercut Chinese corn prices, the Chinese won’t have enough ethanol to reach mars…and then they will sneak into the United States and open restaurants which will devastate the price of Kung Pao Chicken…a subject neither state or federal lawmakers address.

Randy Graf must be the luckiest man alive…

In the same week in which Patty Weiss does her Jerry Brown imitation, Mike Hellon decides that he’s going to play chicken with a freight train.

Hellon is way behind in the money race and Kolbe’s endorsement of Huffman effectively ends Hellon’s campaign. His exit from the race is inevitable, but the longer he waits, the more he drains resources and momentum from Huffman. Republicans are starting to think the unthinkable…what happens if he commits the political equivalent of self-immolation and stays in the race? Actually, everyone knows what will happen. Graf will beat them both. The question is, where will Hellon have to move? My guess is Utah or Idaho. Because if he doesn't drop out come November he won’t be able to walk through a Costco in Tucson without little children pointing at him and saying “Mommie, there’s the spoiler.”

More on Rimsza

I have had a lot of comments about the Skip Rimsza sign. Here’s a funny letter.

Greg,

I should have taken a picture of it, but on the corner of Pinnacle Peak and Tatum, there was the same Rimsza sign where a prankster put a Vodka bottle pasted to the hand so that it looked like Rimsza was drinking. Given the look on his face, the Vodka bottle seemed to fit.

Chris

Hayworth Mitchell Update

Folks have been wondering if the Democrats are going to invest in the Mitchell. Here’s one letter writer who doesn’t think so.

Greg,

Great point on Mitchell. I would be stunned if the DCCC played here. They are going to have much better targets than Hayworth.

Here is their thought process. First, they have to decide how to play. By that I mean, do they invest in a grassroots operation or invest in a media campaign. Since the district is so heavily Republican, the grassroots campaign doesn’t really work. They must drive up Hayworth’s negatives. That means mail or T.V. Phoenix is one of the most expensive media markets in the country. It will easily cost $1 million in television to have the type of saturation they need. Hypothetically, if J.D. is the 22^nd most vulnerable Republican seat, Do they want to spend north of $1 million on him. That is a BIG gamble. It isn’t like all the other campaigns that are more vulnerable will get the exact same amount of money. By the time they get to the 22^nd most vulnerable seat, they will have spent $30-$40 million on the others. When you factor in defending at least a couple seats, they now have well over $40 million committed. Do they really have $1.5 million to go after their 22^nd pick up? Remember, they only need 15 seats to take control. My bet is that if Harry can’t crack the top 15 he should refrain from putting his name on the ballot. It will be a terrible way for him to end his career.

May 22, 2006

Benji Go Home

So I’m cooking soup on Saturday afternoon, I hear a knock on the door and when I open it there is a kid who is about 12 and a man who is in his late 30’s. The man speaks first and introduces the child as “Benji” He tells me that Benji is earning points so he can attend camp. Benji then proceeds to recite a speech that he’s obviously given a thousand times…he’s earning points for camp he has promised not to do drugs, to stay in school and not join a gang. Would I like to help him earn points for camp?

I asked the older guy who he was and he responded that he was Benji’s “adult sponsor.” Next, I asked how Benji earns points towards camp. The answer caught me by surprise. “By selling subscriptions to the Arizona Republic.” In fact the adult sponsor said that he had been with the republic for 17 years.

I responded that I already subscribe, but I would be happy to give Benji $5 to apply toward camp. The adult sponsor said that would be great, because Benji gets double points for contributions.

That caught my attention.

What do you mean “double points”? I want Benji to keep the $5. The adult sponsor responded that all contributions are put toward subscriptions. The newspapers are then donated to women’s shelters or homeless shelters and that the kids are happier because they would rather earn the trips and prizes.

I didn’t want to get in a debate with the adult sponsor while my dinner was burning and Benji was standing there. So I handed the $5 to Benji and told him that he could either keep it or apply it to camp…it was his choice.

As I stirred my soup and microwaved a couple slices of bacon I began to work through the math to see who was most likely getting ripped off. Because it’s pretty obvious that someone is.

Is it Benji? I don’t think so. It may be unconscionable to use him as bait, but I think he could have kept the $5 and I believe the adult sponsor when he says that Benji would rather have the trip.

I’m a free market guy, and I believe that both sides benefit from a voluntary transaction, so as long as Benji wasn’t coerced, the fact that he’s selling Republic subscriptions on a Saturday afternoon when it’s 104 degrees doesn’t bother me much. Maybe he sews soccer balls for Nike after school. Very entrepreneurial, gotta respect that.

No, I don’t think Benji’s getting ripped off, how about the advertisers?

As we know, newspapers are the only business that loses money on every subscription and makes it up on volume. Circulation is a vehicle for advertising revenue, and newspaper circulation has been plummeting for years. In fact, despite its position as the leading newspaper in one of the nation’s fastest growing counties the Republic has lost 2.7 percent in the last 6 months alone.

Newspapers are so desperate to add subscribers that they are willing to do so at a loss. In fact, some newspapers—Chicago and Dallas--for example have been caught using gimmicks to inflate circulation numbers. The audit bureau of Circulation frowns on that practice.

So when Benji’s adult sponsor assured me that Benji would rather keep the incentives than the cash, I believe him. The paper would be willing to provide more than $5 benefit in exchange for $5 toward a subscription. (Much the same as a clean election candidate would be willing to provide more than $5 benefit in exchange for a contribution.)

So is the Republic ripping of its advertisers by generation phantom subscriptions? Is this another example of a circulation-inflating gimmick?

Let’s assume that the adult sponsor is telling the truth, and the Republic has a program that allows kids to sell subscriptions in exchange for trips and prizes. Let’s assume further that the Republic is very generous with the trips and prizes, so the kids would rather buy subscriptions with the contributions than keep the cash. Furthermore, we will assume that the sponsor is correct and that the excess papers are then donated to the shelters.

That’s brilliant.

Each component looks like charity. If it’s all true, then the Republic has established a way for underprivileged kids to get off the streets, promise to avoid gangs, stay in school and earn “points” toward a camp and prizes that they could never afford.

The camp and prizes are very generous and clearly provide a contribution to the children; the Republic can clearly justify this expenditure. It doesn’t look odd on the books and they get goodwill in the community for helping underprivileged kids.

The excess papers are donated to the shelters and who could argue with that?

Benji’s happy because he gets cool prizes. I’m happy. I gave $5 to Benji, but I clearly would not have purchased another subscription.

The people who get ripped off are the advertisers. My donation (combined with others) purchased subscriptions that will be sent to homeless people who don’t shop at Dillards and the papers will then be thrown away. The cash that made the transaction viable came from the Republic in the form of charitable contributions to underprivileged children. My incentive to contribute was also because of the child. He benefits because the Republic is willing to give him more than $5 for my $5 contribution.

There is, of course, another option.

What if the adult sponsor is ripping off the Republic? It’s possible that the Republic has never heard of Benji and doesn’t realize that children are being used to solicit subscriptions. Maybe the adult sponsor is paid by the Republic to go door to door and sell subscriptions. The Republic gives him enough incentive for each sale that he is able to make a living and send Benji to camp. The economics of the transaction are the same--phantom subscriptions disguised as charity--but the Republic has plausible deniability.

So what's real story? I guess we will probably have to ask management about that one.

I'll email them this morning and see if they are available for comment.

Update: Here's a note from the Publisher.

Greg,

Simply put we don't sell the paper this way. In fact, most of the
comments made by the "sponsor" or your interpretation of how the business works is inaccurate. I'm also pleased so say that the latest release of Scarborough shows the Arizona Republic readership increasing both daily and Sunday.

Greg, I'm in the office all afternoon if you'd like to talk further please
call.

John Zidich

I just received this letter.

Greg, great stuff as always. My last $16.25 monthly payment to the Arizona Republic was in December of 2005. They’ve sent two payment reminders, on which I’ve written “please cancel my subscription” and something about the article they ran about pole dancing. As of today I’m still getting daily delivery.
Best,
Tim Sifert

Zonitics Reveals Further Talton Lunacy.

Why all the problems in Mesa?

Because as Jon Talton states in today’s column, it’s the Decline and Fall of Mesa, all because they didn’t pass a property tax during last week’s election. Now I could give the column a fisking but it’s almost impossible to do because it’s all just 2 or 3 sentence paragraphs strung together about how bad Mesa is and how the Valley should just get rid of it- written in the eternal, catty style of a teenage girl who thinks they should kick the dull, straight-laced girl out of the club because she isn’t cool enough.

May 20, 2006

Look Back In Anger

As predicted, former State Representative, and one time body builder Mark Thompson dropped out of the District 17 race yesterday. Thompson was one of the "moderates" who fought for more spending and worked with Governor Napolitano to run over legislative conservatives in budget negotiations.

Moderate Republicans joined Democrats at the State Capitol in handing conservative legislative leaders a big defeat and Gov. Janet Napolitano a big win in the two big issues of this year's session -- the budget and all-day kindergarten.

This is the second year in a row that moderate Republicans have spurned conservative cohorts and handed victories to the Democratic governor.

Thompson isn't going quietly--which means he isn't coming back. Here's what he said on the way out.

Republicans have proposed a $9.9 billion budget for the next fiscal year, which is about $1.1 billion higher than the current fiscal year ending June 30. The increase, Thompson said, goes against Republican values and is financially irresponsible.

That's right. The guy who very publicly ran over the Republican leadership in order to increase spending is claiming that Republicans are spending too much money.

Do you think that in a quiet moment, during a time of introspection... perhaps while he is shaving is chest in the shower... Mark Thompson realizes what a hypocrite his is?

Me neither.

May 19, 2006

Mark Thompson is going to drop out of the District 17 race today.

Making a list of next fall's winners? You can skip Rimsza.

I've put up thousands of signs for dozens of candidates. I've seen good signs, bad signs, clever signs, vertical signs, diagonal signs, all shapes and sizes.

This sign is the worst that I have ever seen. What is Skip Rimsza thinking? Is it a joke? Did he lose a bet?

The sign fails on so many levels that it's like a bad poem--even a neophyte can see the immediate failure, but further examination will reveal subtle failures that crop up with each pass. It's like reading Robert Frost in reverse..."Two Roads Diverged...."

Let's start with the obvious failings. I've never seen a picture this bad. What's with the missing hand, the buttoned coat and the expression? It looks like he was feeling for something on the top of a wall and put his hand in warm bird poop.

But let's go deeper. Purple with yellow? Give me a break. Notice that his shirt is blue? That means he paid for full four color process. That's expensive and allows him to print the sign in full color. But he has the worst of both worlds, the expense of a full color sign that really only used two colors...and they are purple and yellow.

That's a good first pass, if I were a high school student and noticed those problems, I would get a B. (Which would now add points to my AIMS score.)

Stan Barnes has pointed out that if you Google "Skip Rimsza" you get about 18,000 hits. If you Google "Jan Brewer", you get more than double that amount. So much for experience.

Rimsza is running in a Republican Primary against the incumbent Secretary of State, Jan Brewer. But he didn't write "Republican" on the sign. My gosh. His race is the Primary. The Republican Primary...against an incumbent Republican. He has to put "Republican" on the sign or people will simply assume that he's a Democrat running against Brewer in the General election. Rimsza was the mayor of Phoenix; it's a non-partisan office. Voters don't know that he's a Republican and with this sign, they are going to assume he is a Democrat.

If your race is the General and you are an outnumbered Democrat, you leave "Democrat" off of your sign. That's why Pederson's signs don't have a party affiliation. That's a smart move on Pederson's part. Verkamp is going to try to make him pay for that move. But it's still a smart move. You can bet that Verkamp will have "Democrat" on his sign because he's the underdog in the Primary.

Ok, let's go one level deeper. What's up with the Union Label? Let me repeat Skip, it's a Republican Primary.

Now for the master's thesis. The sign has grommets...those are the little reinforced eyelets that allow you to tie a rope to canvas without splitting the canvas. I don't use them, because they are expensive and I don't think they add that much support. But some people whom I respect very much (e.g. David Schweikert who is a superb campaigner) swear by grommets. Ok, to each his own.

But Rimsza put the grommets on the top and the bottom! They are supposed to go on the side so the sign can be attached to the post. He paid for grommets and put the dang things in the wrong spot so he can't use them. He had to run wire through the side of the signs and ignore the grommets.

Finally, a little history. The biggest advance in sign technology has been the use choroplast. Signs used to be on plywood. They were printed on sheets of paper in three panels by Billboard Poster and glued to the plywood with wallpaper paste. It was expensive, really messy, poor quality and they were very heavy. You could only carry one at a time and good luck getting more than ten in the truck. Eliminating the plywood has been a huge advance.

Incredibly, Rimsza has glued this sign to a sheet of plywood.

Update: I received a ton of overnight email about this post.

Folks want to know if I photoshopped the sign. Absolutely not. This sign is on 44st just south of Oak and all I did is crop it for size. They also wonder if Rimsza has somehow been punk'd. Is it some type of elaborate hoax to make him look bad?

In 1990 someone put up a handful of expensive 4 x 8 signs with Bart Simpson's picture and the slogan "Send another underachiever to the Legislature." The prankster has never come forward.

Others wonder if this is some sort of brilliant scheme by Jan Brewer to ensure that she qualifies for the clean elections money, endorsement and free media that comes from having a contested primary. That's unlikely. That trick only works if you find an obscure candidate and let him run a semi-credible race. This is opposite. Rimsza would normally be a legitimate candidate but this bizarre sign has made him a laughingstock.

But I'm open to the inexplicable. That's why I asked if he was joking or lost a bet. I frankly have no idea what is going on.

May 18, 2006

School Days

Raising kids in the internet age is a challenge. One of the first things that you have to teach them is that you can't cut and paste someone else's words into your homework unless you give them credit.

The next lesson is that you can't write your own words and attribute them to a fancy source so that your arguments sound credible. If you want to express your theories on, say, scientology, you can't write a long passage and then end it with the words "Encyclopedia Britannica, New York Times, 4/15/05"

It looks like Jim Pederson could use some instruction. He has been going round and round with Jon Kyl on immigration issues. Nowicki has good coverage here.

Pederson put this screed on his website today.

Jon Kyl and John Cornyn have been pushing an amendment for months that comprehensive immigration reform backers, including Sen. John McCain, feared was so vaguely worded bill that it would have gutted the bill. As Reuters reported today, “An earlier version of the amendment on criminals by Republicans Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas was seen as a ‘poison pill’ that could have sunk the bill.” A fight over the amendment was averted last night after Kyl and Cornyn backed down and agreed to modify their amendment to clarify the vague language. Thanks to the pressure of comprehensive reform backers like John McCain, President Bush and Jim Pederson, the clarified amendment moved forward and passed 99-0, as it would have a month ago if Kyl and Cornyn had not taken such a hard-line. [Reuters, 5/17/06; Bloomberg, 5/17/06; Houston Chronicle, 5/17/06; MSNBC.com, 5/17/06]

Notice those sources at the end? They look really official don't they? The Reuters quote is out of context, and if you read the other underlying articles, they have nothing to do with Pederson's points. Pederson is never mentioned and there is no reference to Kyl "backing down." In fact, the articles make Kyl look good.

Pederson has simply written his own personal diatribe and ended the press release by referring to actual articles in order to give his release an air of credibility.

That wouldn't fly at Mohave Middle school. Maybe Jim Pederson should come over tomorrow night, in addition to reviewing basic research techniques, we will be multiplying fractions. It sounds like he could use a review of the basics.

Secret Shopper

Unless they are writing to complain about high gas prices, global warming or barking dogs, most people don't ever deal with their Congressman. In fact, most Americans can't name their Congressman.

I recently had a opportunity to work with my Congressman's office because my 13 year old son went to Washington D.C. with his grandparents last weekend and they wanted to tour the White House and see the Senate or House in session.

Post 9/11, White House tickets must be obtained through your Congressional Representative's office. So I called JD Hayworth's office a month or so ago and soon realized that I had cut it too close. But the office staff managed to reserve White House tickets and said that tickets for the House gallery would be waiting in Mr. Hayworth's office in the Rayburn building.

They had a great time on the White House tour, but since the President was speaking on Monday afternoon, they couldn't get to the Rayburn building. They asked a security guard who said that he thought there was an Arizona Congressman in the Longworth Building.

My son called me that evening and said that he received tickets from the Congressman in the Longworth building..."the people in the office were very nice, the congressman's name was Trent Franks, I think he's a Democrat."

The House wasn't in session, so they wanted to go to the Senate and fortunately, Senator Kyl had left Senate Gallery tickets in Congressman Frank's office.

It wouldn't have mattered if Trent Franks had been a Democrat or a Republican and I'm sure that if Daniel had wandered into Congressmen Pastor or Grijalva's office, he would have been treated to excellent service as well.

We often forget what it takes to run a Congressional office and occasionally lose sight of how hard the folks behind the scenes work to ensure that Arizonans are treated well when they interact with the federal government.

It doesn't matter if it's a lost Social Security check, delayed Visa, passport problem or lanky 13 year old with a funny haircut who wants to see the Senate Gallery, there are a bunch of hard working folks of both Parties who work to make sure folks in Arizona are well taken care of.

Thanks guys.

May 17, 2006

Fischer Cut Bait II

Last week I mentioned the phenomenon of "gatekeeper bias."

The most pernicious type of bias occurs when the newspapers use their role as gatekeepers to make sure that you don't hear about stories that conflict with their world view.

Reporters, of course, hold the keys to the gates and when they don't want to let the reader in, they simply close the gate...or direct you through a gate of their preference.

For example, Len Munsil held a press conference last week and announced that he had the endorsement of 29 legislators.

Here's how the Associated Press Covered the Event

29 legislators back Munsil

Dozens of Republican state legislators Thursday endorsed Len Munsil's candidacy for governor.

The AP article appeared in the Republic, the Citizen, KTVK and KPHO.

But why no coverage in the Tribune or the Daily Star? That's because Howie Fischer writes for the Tribune and the Star and he had a different take on the event. Here's how Howie covered the press conference.

Munsil stands by 1985 decision to not publish notices for gay groups

PHOENIX - Republican gubernatorial hopeful Len Munsil said Thursday he acted correctly two decades ago when he used his position as editor of the ASU State Press to refuse to run meeting notices for gay and lesbian groups.

That's right, Len Munsil stood in front of nearly one third of the Legislature--many of whom were from the East Valley--and announced that he had their support and you can't read about it in the East Valley Tribune because Howie Fischer has been entrusted with the key to the gate.

Howie took advantage of the press conference to trot out an old story about a really old story. Richard Ruelas had discussed the State Press story a few weeks earlier and it was a story about and event that was twenty years old.

So if you live in the East Valley and subscribe to the Trib, you have no idea that your legislators are endorsing Len Munsil.

In fact if you read the Trib all you know is that Munsil announced and the twenty year old ASU State Press story. You don't know about the legislative endorsements, the Congressional endorsements, the record setting pace for collecting his $5 contributions or the rapid pace in which he raised his seed money--all stories that have been covered elsewhere.

That's because Howie Fischer controls these gates and he decided that you aren't going through them.

Seems like you are on a need-to-know basis.

So why bother subscribing to the Tribune, or any newspaper for that matter? Hmm, I guess that's the point isn't it?

Here's a good update on the District 8 Race

When Jim Kolbe last week endorsed Steve Huffman to succeed him in Congress, Kolbe made it clear he believes Huffman is best qualified.

Kolbe's real goal, however, was something else entirely: to make sure Randy Graf doesn't win.

Is it possible Kolbe's endorsement may backfire? That the real beneficiary of his support will be Graf and not Huffman?

May 16, 2006

Out of the Senate, In the Race, Off the List, Without a Clue…inside, outside, upside down.

So is Harry Mitchell's race against JD Hayworth a national priority for the Democrats or not? Mitchell's camp claims that they are still one of the "hot" races, but recent press reports indicate otherwise.

Here’s how it played out in The Hill.

The first phase of Democratic candidates to benefit from the House Democrats’ Red to Blue fundraising program includes six fewer candidates than originally reported.

A spokeswoman for Harry Mitchell was similarly unfazed.

“He definitely is on the list. ... [Rep.] Rahm Emanuel [D-Ill.] called him and told him so.”

And indeed, the DCCC seemed to put the story to rest with this response. As reported by Nowicki.

"It is absurd. It was a misreported article. Harry Mitchell, and that race, is very important to us. It is still a top priority and still a part of the 'Red to Blue' program. That reporter had gotten a hold of a fundraising packet that included only certain candidates that we were targeting for that particular donor. So nothing more than that."

However, Paul Giblin had this to say in the Monday’s Trib.

Harry Mitchell will have to wait for a national organization dedicated to putting Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives to show him the money.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee previously identified him as one of 22 candidates nationwide to benefit from its Red to Blue fundraising program.

However, the Washington based organization included the names of 16 candidates on fundraising packets being circulated this month to decision-makers of deep pocketed political action committees. Mitchell didn’t make the cut.

Paul is either behind the curve or ahead of it. Perhaps he is responding to the original article in The Hill and hasn't read Mitchell's response, or he doesn't think that the Mitchell assurances undercut the article.

My guess is that this is a classic hedge. Organizations routinely recruit candidates by promising them lots of support and then they see how the races go. Those races that look winnable get all the support and those that don't receive what I call the "Uriah the Hittite" treatment.

In case it's been a while since you were in Sunday school, remember that after David discovered that Bathsheba was pregnant, he resolved to kill her husband. Uriah the Hittite was a soldier in David's army and, as we learned in 2 Samuel 11:15, David sent a note to his generals with this message.

"Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die."

He may disagree, but I always believed that George Cunningham was given the Uriah treatment when he ran against Kolbe a few years back. There was lots of buzz and promises of significant funding and eventually George was in the forefront of the hottest battle and when he looked around, everyone else had retired that he might be smitten. And smitten he was.

It looks like Mitchell may be about to experience the same fate.

Crazy Aunt Patty

Patty Weiss on the Issues

I've mentioned that since I grew up in Tucson, I feel like Patty Weiss is a member of the family. Well, I've now had an opportunity to see where she stands on the issues, and she's still like family, but more like a crazy aunt.

"Americans needs universal healthcare. We're the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't provide some kind of government health assistance for workers"

Weiss thinks that if the US really wanted to solve the immigration problem, they'd prevent American agribusiness from undercutting Mexican trade, a subject neither state or federal lawmakers address.

"Once the fed has a realistic immigration policy," she said, "the states will back off and will take care of a lot of the vindictive state bills which call for sanctions on government workers, educational institutions, and landlords who are open to providing for immigrant workers."

This is could easily be read as a veiled reference to Prop. 200 which passed in Cochise County and did pretty well in Pima County. I don't know if I would refer to a bill that many of my constituents support as "vindictive."

Weiss certainly seems much more "progressive" than Giffords. I wonder if the media will ever point that out? After all, Graf is always described as "conservative" when he's compared to Huffman and Hellon. Will Weiss be described as Liberal when compared to Giffords?

That's not a Salamander, it's a Gerrymander.

Ted Prezelski has an interesting point over at R Cubed.

Interestingly, prior to becoming party chairman, Pederson funded the "Fair District" initiative which ended up solidifying our gerrymandered hard right majority in the legislature, and the "Clean Elections" initiative, which made the activist-conservative candidacy of Len Munsil possible. You'd think they'd be more grateful.

Democrats love to blame their dismal Legislative numbers on "gerrymandered" districts. They often complain that the Independent Redistricting Commission simply codified the districts that the the mean old Republicans rigged in 1991.

But Tedski and his progressive friends forget that in 1991 the Democrats controlled the State Senate. Yes folks, the Legislature drew a bi-partisan legislative map and couldn't agree on a Congressional map...which was drawn by federal judges.

Is there a system more fair than that? A completely bi-partisan legislative map and a Congressional map written by federal judges?

Ironically, the Democrats largely controlled the Senate in 2001 as well and would have had much more impact on the process if the Independent Commission had not existed.

Why do the districts favor Republicans? It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that there are 150,000 more Republicans than Democrats in Arizona and they aren't distributed randomly. The reservations and urban cores are overwhelmingly Democratic while the suburbs and exburbs are Republican...increasingly, the traditionally Democratic rural areas are looking more suburban and therefore more Republican.

Want competitive districts? Mathematically, they will ALL have a 5,000 vote Republican majority and the inner cities and the tribes will be carved up and allocated to the suburban areas in a pie shaped pattern.

No. If the Democratic Party wants more Democratic Legislators, they need to, you know, register more Democrats, and stop whining about how unfair the districts are.

Mr. Clean

Tedski has a good point about Clean Elections. It has been a disaster for the Democrats and the moderate Republicans. It has empowered the Christian right and emasculated the business community. There are currently nearly a dozen legislators who could not have been elected under the old system and they are all conservatives...many of them beat moderate incumbents.

I will note however that Munsil is an exception to this rule. Yes, Len Munsil has a tremendous grass roots base, and he managed to get his seed money in a few weeks and get all of his $5 contributions in 3 months, but he's not a creature of Clean Elections.

Munsil created the Center for Arizona Policy from scratch and it has a 1.8 million dollar ANNUAL budget. He ultimately raised nearly 2 million dollars every year...and he's been running the organization 10 years.

To be sure, there are limits on individual contributions that would have slowed him down if he were raising money for a gubernatorial campaign, but it's pretty clear that he could have raised substantial money...perhaps several million dollars under a traditional system.

And remember that those contributions didn't come from lobbyists, they would not have disappeared in a gubernatorial race. In fact, they probably would have been enhanced by a race against Napolitano.

But Ted's main point is still right. Jim Pederson's forays into the initiative process have both turned out badly for the Democrats.

Frankly I'm shocked, shocked, that these liberal utopian programs have had unintended consequences. How can it be that smart people can establish government programs to enhance our quality of life only to have the results marred by an unexpected reality? I'm sure that this is the first time something like that has ever happened.

May 14, 2006

Why doesn't this Surprise Me?

A plane carrying US senator Edward M Kennedy was struck by lightning on Saturday and had to be diverted to New Haven,

Don't ever ride with a Kenney and I wouldn't recommend standing too close to Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown either.

Look Mom, I'm in the the Republic...

Pat Flannery wrote an excellent A1 story about the rise of blogs for Sunday's Republic. Here's what they said about yours truly.

Greg Patterson, a former lawmaker, moonlights as the EspressoPundit, tapping out conservative critiques every evening at home. The blog is particularly popular among Republican state lawmakers.

"I try to keep it under an hour and a half, but often I can't," he said of his obsession.

There is a common thread binding these new-school pundits: a distrust of traditional news sources and disagreement with the MSM's choices in what to cover and how.

"People are really frustrated at the gate-keeping aspect of the mainstream media," Patterson said.

His political ties allow him to mine the gossip network for news that sometimes goes unreported elsewhere, and his blend of commentary and sarcasm often includes a dollop of local press criticism.

Patterson said his averages about 300 hits a day, with about 350 readers on a weekly distribution list.

Actually, it's about 400 hits a day lately and there are about 450 people on the distribution list.

And what's all this stuff about "my obsession"? Espresso pundit isn't an obsession. Washing my hands 50 times a day isn't an obsession either...although I guess writing down how many times a day I wash my hands...that could be an obsession...and writing down everything I eat, and refusing to alter the route that I walk through Costco...and my collection of used Styrofoam cups...those could be obsessions, but writing espresso pundit is a hobby.

You Get What you Pay For...

I received quite a few comments about my District 8 predictions. Most of them were along the line of "Dude, you ignored the polls and the money."

Anyone can read the polls and tabulate the contributions and tell you who is going to win. Just ask Congresswoman Lisa Atkins who crushed perennial candidate Trent Franks.

However I agree that the money is an interesting factor. Check this out.

Burns: "Say Goodnight Gracie" Allen: "Goodnight Gracie"

Fifty years later, that's still funny. Check out this headline from the Republic.

put headline here

May. 12, 2006 12:00 AM

Two Arizona companies are the first to join the Arizona Performance Track program, a voluntary partnership between the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and businesses that recognizes environmental efforts that exceed the minimum requirements of the law

May 13, 2006

Real talent

By now you have all seen the video of the George Bush alter ego impersonator at the White House Correspondent's dinner. Here's the full clip.

Steve Bridges is the impersonator and he's even better as Bill Clinton and as Arnold.

May 12, 2006

Last Chance To Send Your Dollar Now.

The proposed Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman has 52% support in the latest poll. So the opponents of the amendment have found a new tactic. They have decided to claim that supporting their cause and defeating the amendment is a way to enhance domestic violence protection for women.

But it seems to me like they have taken their spin a bit to far. Click to see a video fundraising plea from State Representative Kyrsten Sinema.

Here's transcript of the key part of he message.

With your help, we can ensure that Arizona mothers and future mothers will still have protection against their abusers. Let's work together to ensure that a year from now, we are not left with regret knowing that our inaction took away protection from someone's mother, daughter, or sister. We're half way at our goal, help us to reach our last $12,000 by going online and contribute today."

Protecting women from their abusers...who could oppose that? But, surely someone who gets this message and sends in a check is going to be surprised when they realize that their money is being used to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

I'm not a lawyer, but someone out there can tell me if this approaches a fraudulent scheme. Evangelist Jim Bakker thought he was raising money for a good cause...and he had plenty of time in prison to reconsider.

More on District 8

From the great minds think alike department, we have this analysis from Jim Nintzel in "The Skinny." My version appeared on May 8th.

Here's the version from the Skinny.

A couple of months back, retiring Congressman Jim Kolbe told the press he had no plans to endorse a successor in the GOP primary race, which includes state Rep. Steve Huffman, former state lawmaker Randy Graf, former GOP national committeeman Mike Hellon, frequent unsuccessful candidate Mike Jenkins and former Army Special Forces soldier Frank Antenori.

But last week, Kolbe gave Huffman his stamp of approval. Guess his real plan was to wait until his GOP supporters--Jim Click, Don Diamond, et al.--leaned hard enough on him to pick their boy.

Kolbe's endorsement of Huffman came shortly after Hellon had sent out a mailer featuring Kolbe's picture. (Actually, it was a badly reproduced Arizona Daily Star page with Kolbe's picture that ended up looking like some kind of photo from an undercover exposé.) If the idea was to make Hellon look like Kolbe's successor, it appears to have been a wasted effort.

Kolbe's pick can't be sitting well with Hellon or his ex-wife, state Sen. Toni Hellon, who has given years of her life to Kolbe campaign efforts. Toni Hellon is none too fond of Huffman, especially since he announced he was going to try to knock her out of her Senate seat, back before Kolbe announced his retirement and Huffman got his eye on a bigger prize.

All things considered, Hellon probably won't win the GOP primary, but he can play a spoiler role, especially since a lot of his current supporters don't care much for Huffman, who needs to consolidate moderate voters to beat Graf, king of the conservatives.

Which may be why Kolbe made the pick when he did: to encourage Hellon to get out of the race before he puts any more effort into it.

My Take On The Race

Hellon will drop out. He would be a fool to burn bridges that took 20 years to build in a quixotic effort to beat both Huffman and Graf. If he stays in the race he will forever be branded as the guy who allowed Graf to win the Primary and Weiss to win the General.

The great unspoken truth is that Kolbe despises Graf so much that he was willing to choose between friends and endorse Huffman over Hellon. Kolbe has close ties to both camps but clearly can't stand Graf and firmly believes that a Graf candidacy forfeits the seat.

Good for Kolbe. I don't agree with his analysis, but it shows leadership. He sees an approaching train wreck and does what it takes to get one of the trains off of the track. The fact that he's willing to derail one friend to advance the needs of another friend is a sign of character.

By the way, my personal North-of-the-Gila Handicapping looks like this:

(I lived in Tucson for 25 years and Kolbe v McNulty II in 1984 was the first race for which I volunteered, so I don't mind making an occasional Southern Arizona prediction. Elections are really hard to predict, but this is my take on it. )

Race Winner

Weiss Vs. Giffords Weiss

Twenty years of TV is insurmountable.

Huffman Vs. Hellon Vs. Graf Graf

Huffman Vs. Graf Probably Graf

Giffords Vs. Huffman Huffman

Giffords Vs. Graf Graf

(You are laughing, but I think Giffords' immigration votes are fatal. In any other year, she would crush Graf and probably beat Huffman--she has the money, the resume, the presence--but not this year.)

Weiss Vs. Huffman Weiss

Weiss Vs. Graff Weiss

I haven't lived in Tucson for over 20 years and I still feel like Patty Weiss is a family member. The best chance Republicans have is if Giffords wins the primary.

I'm open to comments. Please keep them polite.

May 11, 2006

Storming the Gates

It's been a week since the Wall Street Journal put ASU's Dr. Petit/biotech meltdown A1 above the fold. El Gringo and Zonitics were all over it. I think their best point is that in addition to being an indictment of Michael Crow and the direction he is taking the University, the story is an indictment of the Arizona Republic.

Journalists love to say that they simply report the news. Those of us who follow closely will observe two types of bias that journalists won't acknowledge.

The easiest type of bias to spot is the subtle bias that crops up within a story. NPR this morning, for example, had a package about the tax cuts going through Congress and described them as "election year tax cuts." Of course, it's true that it's an election year and these are tax cuts, but the phrase "election year" is supposed to give the impression that they are a political gimmick.

The most pernicious type of bias occurs when the newspapers use their role as gatekeepers to make sure that you don't hear about stories that conflict with their world view.

Most newspapers, for example, ignore the remarkable economic growth that the country is currently enjoying. After months of stories about a "jobless" recovery, you would think that the papers would point out how many jobs have been created in the last year.

Republic readers are exposed to this type of bias constantly. For example, there were literally no stories about Mainstream Arizona's political troubles, but Constantin Querard was ridiculed all summer.

Jim Pederson's son's legal troubles are buried while Bennett's are trumpeted.

The possible involvement of Jim Pederson's wife in young Jimmy's drug problems is never mentioned because families are deemed to be off limits. But when John McCain's family was touched with drug issues the family was hounded by the Republic--and Cindy McCain was subjected to what was in retrospect the cruelest Benson cartoon of all time.

As you can see from the previous examples, oftentimes the only way to detect gatekeeper bias is to compare events that are prominently covered with similar events that are ignored.

Another indication gatekeeper bias is when a local story appears in a national paper but never in the local one.

How could the ASU, Michael Crow, Dr. Petit, biotech meltdown become so prominent that it makes the cover of the Wall Street Journal and yet the Republic doesn't see fit to print it? After all the Republic breathlessly covers every biotech announcement and swoons over Michael Crow's musings like they are Papal Dogma.

The answer is simple, the Republic simply refuses to print anything that conflicts with its world view or agenda.

The Republic is an incessant booster of Biotech, Civic Center Development, Light Rail, Taxpayer funded stadiums, a state sponsored hotel downtown, Michael Crow and the Napolitano administration.

They espouse a European "public/private" economic model and facts or events that interfere with that paradigm are buried. People who interfere with that paradigm are buried as well.

Here's a letter about the press conference held by the Southern Arizona mayors

Greg,

Before these folks met with the Speaker, they held a press conference. Reporter Howie Fisher asked them “ are any of you Republicans? All is see are Napolitano supporters”. This seemed to irritate these folks. The next speaker, who said she was Mayor of San Luis, began to bad mouth Republicans, saying “Republicans go in the back door of the White House and have the border opened up to let my people come across for the lettuce harvest and then push my people back across the border after the harvest”. She used the term “my people” half a dozen times or so.

At this point I decided to ask her a question,” Ma’am are you an American citizen or a Mexican citizen”. This seemed to irritate her. I asked her the question again and she answered that she was a “Proud Mexican American”. At this point, a man who I found out later was a County Supervisor, began to call me a racist. I raised my hand to be recognized and he said ”that looks like the Nazi salute”. I attempted to explain that when I say my people, I am speaking of Americans, not Scottish-Americans and Scots in Scotland. At this point any further discussion was useless and I left.

I have included a photo taken by Howie Fisher of me during the exchange.

Feel free to post.

Senator Ron Gould
Serving Arizona's 3rd District

Photo by the incomparable Howie Fischer

Lawmaker Drives Hybrid to see Maya Angelou...Kids get in the Way.

I realize that the Insider is supposed to be "tongue in Cheek." But check out the tone of this article.

It was true, however, that Sinema had been in an accident late Friday afternoon. She was on her way to see Maya Angelou speak when two young men riding on a bicycle veered into her path as she motored up Fourth Street near Roosevelt.

One of the young men broke his arm but the other wasn't hurt.

Sinema was not at fault and wasn't ticketed, according to Phoenix police, though her beloved Honda Insight may need to be put to sleep.

Sinema said she is still very sore from the collision, but likely feeling better than the kid on the bike.

What's with the comical tone about "motoring" and the her beloved Honda Insight?

This young man on a bike is someone's child and if my child got run over, I would expect a little more concern and a little less "tongue in cheek." Even if he was hit by a State Representative motoring to a Maya Angelou lecture in her beloved insight.

May 10, 2006

Stupid is as Stupid Does

A group of Southern Arizona Mayors and law enforcement officials came to Phoenix last week, hell bent on making fools of themselves. They succeeded magnificently. But it’s the Arizona Daily Star that really managed to show that it deserves the contempt in which it is held.

The stated purpose of the trip was for the officials to meet with Speaker Jim Weiers in an effort to address Arizona’s illegal immigration issues—more specifically a bill that would classify illegal entry as trespassing in order to allow local police to eliminate their catch and release policies.

This is a serious issue, and people are pretty passionate about it. ASU and KAET conducted a poll in which 44% of respondents believed illegal entry should be a felony.

Unfortunately, Weiers apparently thought it was a serious meeting and scheduled a full hour. At this point in the Session, no one gets an hour with the Speaker or President.

If Weiers knew how the group was assembled, he probably wouldn’t have gone to the trouble. It turns out that the group was hand picked to represent the view that illegal immigration shouldn’t be considered trespassing—a view that they share with Governor Napolitano.

Howie Fischer pointed out this little tidbit.

Conspicuously absent Thursday was Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever who supports creating a felony to give his officers a tool to deal with illegal immigrants. Dever said he wasn't invited.

It turns out that the group was unprepared as well. They stopped off at The Republic’s headquarters and met with the editorial board.

Bob Robb had this take on the meeting.

In reality, I suspect the angst was feigned, given their unfamiliarity with legislative specifics and the Democratic cast of the delegation. This was just another piece of immigration theater designed to shape the politics, not the substance, of the issue.

To top it off, the group held a press conference before the meeting with Weiers and lambasted the Republican proposal.

Even the Star conceded this tactic wasn’t too bright.

We agree that holding a press conference before a meeting with the people you're trying to influence isn't real smart. It tends to make the complainants look like they're more interested in making political hay than in achieving a solution.

Unfortunately the group also failed to come up with any positive suggestions. When asked what they proposed, they continued to respond that immigration is a federal issue.

Speaker Weiers didn’t schedule an hour with this delegation so that he could hear them say that he should solve the problem by writing to his Congressman.

Why did they bother to come to Phoenix? It’s not every day that you get the opportunity to meet with the editorial board of the Republic and have an hour long meeting with the Speaker of the House.

Why bother coming if the group exclude folks who supported the legislation?

Why didn’t they read the bill and come prepared to discuss it?

Why didn’t they have a proposal other than repeating that “immigration is a federal issue.”

And why have a press conference to blast the Speaker, the bill and the Republicans before the meeting even occurred?

The meeting broke up after about ten minutes and it didn’t end well.

"He's very pompous, very arrogant," Douglas Mayor Ray Borane said of Weiers.

Weiers, in turn, said it was "politically stupid" for the officials to first have a press conference "and take shots at the very people they were down here to talk to."

And what was the Star’s reaction to this embarrassment? Incredibly they actually called for Weiers to be removed from office.

Republicans would be wise to look for a more conciliatory leader — someone more thoughtful and restrained, like Bennett or former House Speaker Jake Flake — at the first opportunity.

They don’t call it the Red Star for nothing.

It's a Small World After All.

Yesterday I mentioned the Republican train wreck that was the Rhodes, Mundell, Barnes et. al. primary in 1992. I was riding in one of the engines next to Stan Barnes at the time, and I received this letter from a friend whom I didn't know in 1992--the year he was riding on the Rhodes express. (He points out that I spelled Rhodes incorrectly, and I have since corrected it.)

Greg: Wow, you went into the wayback machine with your comments about CD 8 and the Rhodes comparison. Note the spelling!

I will certainly give you a bad time for the misspelling, and you can give us a bad time for a doomed campaign. I think I still have a "Rhodes to Congress" official campaign Emory board -- honestly, we gave 'em away during the campaign and in November, I was stuck with two boxes of the stupid things.

I still think Randy (Graf) can beat the Democrat, whoever she is.

John Dougherty Director of Governmental Affairs, Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

May 9, 2006

Making the Mid East Safe for Homosexuality

Congressman Jim Kolbe addressing the Log Cabin Republicans.

Kolbe spoke of what he saw as a link between terrorist nations and anti-gay oppression. Commenting on the male Iranian lovers who were recently executed in Tehran for homosexuality, Kolbe said that the nations that most threaten our national security are also the nations that are most oppressive to gays and lesbians. "Do gay rights stop at our borders?" he asked, and then called for the U.S. to become more active in exporting our way of life into other nations.

Dude, that's exactly what they are afraid is going to happen.

The First Rule of Holes:

When you are in one...stop digging.

Napolitano's attorney on the allegations that her campaign violated campaign law by starting early.

The lawyer, Andy Gordon, acknowledged that state law makes it clear candidates cannot buy products like campaign signs or time for TV commercials before they form their legally required election committees. And he conceded work was done on a Web site for Napolitano's re-election campaign before the committee was formed so that it was ready to post that day.

But Gordon said the Web site was being prepared by Integrated Web Strategy as part of an overall contract for the length of the campaign.

My gosh, that's not a defense, it's an admission. Read the entire article, it's incredible. Anyone even remotely familiar with Clean Elections will immediately recognize that this is an admission of a serious violation.

David Burnell Smith was removed from office because the CECC decided that he overspent by $6,000. He wasn't fined, he wasn't denied future clean elections money. He was duly elected and then forcibly removed for what, in retrospect, looks like a pretty trivial error.

Napolitano's violations could be the most serious violations of a candidate to date. Will the Commission respond with the same intensity that has been used on Republicans, or will they find a way to bury this? And how will the courts respond? It's going to be an interesting summer.

Update: This post drew quite a bit of overnight response, Here's an example.

Greg

Better still was the part where they said that Max Fose was "taking a
chance" when he did the work early, because if Janet hadn't have run for re-election, he would have lost out! Come again? There was a chance Janet wasn't going to run again?

If Clean Elections buys this mularky, it means that any consultant can
design and print all of the signs and direct mail for candidates "in case"
they decide to buy it later on, when they have money... See the "chance" the consultant would be taking? Of course, if the consultant got "lucky" and guessed right, the candidate would have product available instantly, the moment funding was available, the way Janet did, when not only was the website instantly available, but when it came fully stocked with all of the Governor's chosen content and when it was designed in such a magical way that she required no editing or cosmetic changes whatsoever before going online... That Fose took some chance didn't he...

Getting everything done ahead of time... My, how that would change races, especially late when those matching funds were coming in the final week... IF, of course, Clean Elections were to buy this mularky... No wonder Barb Lubin is resigning from the Clean Elections Institute. Even she can't come up with a decent excuse to bail the Gov out on this one. The hypocrisy required to call for the electric chair for David Smith and them defend this obvious violation must have been too much for her...

Name Withheld

Here's a Press Release from CAP

Over the last two weeks, numerous media reports and at least one candidate have implied or stated that The Center for Arizona Policy participated in Len Munsil’s campaign for Governor by helping him qualify for public financing and for the ballot.

Today, on behalf of The Center, I reject these baseless accusations and call upon the media and candidates to take the time to get their facts straight. The Center for Arizona Policy is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that does not intervene or participate in political campaigns.

In December, The Center’s founding president, Len Munsil, announced he would leave the organization effective December 31, 2005 to consider a run for governor. To protect The Center’s non-profit identity, Munsil did not speak to the media about his candidacy until after he officially left his employment with the Center.

The Center does not make its mailing list available to political candidates. No political candidate has ever had access to The Center’s mailing lists, network, or resources. The Center did not help Munsil in any way to gather his clean elections forms nor his petition signatures.

May 8, 2006

Conventional Wisdom, Train wrecks, Spoilers and Canaries...it must be an election year.

The Republican side of the race to replace Jim Kolbe in District 8 is looking like a train wreck. Conventional wisdom is that Randy Graf is too conservative for the district, but his victory in the Primary Election is virtually assured because he is facing two viable moderates in Steve Huffman and Mike Hellon. Either one would have a tough race against Graf. For both of them to oppose him is political suicide.

One would assume that rational minds would prevail and one them will drop out. While economists assume that players are rational, pundits don’t have that luxury. In 1992, Congressman Jay Rhodes was in trouble while Stan Barnes and Bill Mundell had their eyes on a Congressional seat. Both chose to run against a vulnerable incumbent, neither blinked, both lost.

Events of the last few weeks may have tipped the balance. Huffman has been the favorite of the Tucson financial crowd, and now Kolbe has endorsed Huffman. This changes the dynamic considerably. The race is no longer viewed as a head on collision between trains, it’s more like Hellon has parked a Suburban on Huffman’s track.

Political careers can survive a train wreck—my friends Barnes and Mundell are doing quite well. But no one survives as a spoiler. Hellon risks permanent political damage if he doesn’t drop out.

Post Script. I’ve said before that I think Graf could beat Giffords. Her immigration votes were defensible when she cast them, but they are viewed as way out of the mainstream today.

Canary in a Coal Mine

This may come as a shock to you, but former State Senator John Verkamp is not going to be a United States Senator. However he plays an invaluable role as a canary…testing the level of poison gas in the political coal mine that is the Democratic Primary.

Jim Pederson has placed an interesting wager by distancing himself from the political party that he once chaired. His signs don’t use the word “Democrat;” his commercials say that he doesn’t care “if it’s a Republican idea, or a Democrat idea,” and he promises to be an “independent” Senator. I don’t claim any special knowledge about the inner workings of Democratic politics, but if the comments on various Democratic blogs are an indication, the Democratic base isn’t happy with the gamble.

Enter Verkamp. He’s making the rounds at “progressive” functions. He’s saying the right things about Iraq and President Bush and it appears that he owns the entire Michael Moore film library. He’s probability got the boxed set.

So does he get the signatures? One man can’t collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot in a U.S. Senate race. Will enough of the Democratic Party faithful knock on doors for a former Republican with an extreme DUI conviction just to send a message to a former Democratic Party Chairman who ignores the faithful like a kid sister at the prom? If so, it's an indication of deep dissatisfaction among the faithful.

In addition to providing an indication of a neglected base, if Verkamp qualifies for the ballot then Pederson’s early gamble will have cost him dearly. I served in the House with John Verkamp; we were on the Appropriations Committee together until he got kicked off. I can’t think of one issue that he shared with the Republican Party. He is a true believer with nothing to lose.

Verkamp has already mentioned Pederson’s bankruptcy. He’s sure to discuss strip malls, urban sprawl, bulldozed desert, OxyContin, faulty intelligence, Valerie Plame, Bush’s role in 9/11, money for oil, amnesty for illegals, impeachment for Bush and a host of issues that will resonate with the “progressive” base and that Jim Pederson does not want to discuss.

No, Verkamp isn’t going to be a United States Senator, but watch him closely. He’s the best indicator of the extent of Pederson’s troubles.

Speaking of Train Wrecks, What's up in District 17?

It is looking like the Republicans aren't planning to field a candidate for the State Senate in District 17. Of course, there are a handful running for the House.

Seems to me like Matt Salmon has some phone calls to make.

May 7, 2006

Lies take a second Lap

I mentioned last week that there is an organized disinformation campaign claiming that Jon Kyl and other Republicans are advocating the "immediate deportation" of illegal aliens. The speaker/prevaricator then goes on to talk about how impractical and cruel this would be. Maybe even pointing out that the President and John McCain don't even think "immediate deportation" is practical. The truth, of course, is that there aren't any Republicans officials who have suggested immediate or mass deportation.

Here's a great example of the tactic from former Democratic congressional candidate Randy Camacho.

Leading the fray and speaking like someone running for Congress for the first time, Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., has attempted to make his mark by writing a book titled Whatever It Takes in which he advocates "immediate deportation" of all of the estimated 12 million individuals living in America illegally.

Wow, those "quotation marks" look official. The problems is that Congressman Hayworth never suggests "immediate deportation."

Camacho teaches at Westview High School. Let's hope that when he is in the class room he has higher standards than when he writes for the paper.

Running Clean and Jumping the Gun.

If you are not up to speed on the election law violations that Governor Napolitano committed by starting her campaign and accumulating a ton of debt before she filed her paperwork, click here for an update.

Once you are up to speed, here's an interesting letter from Senator Ron Gould.

Greg,

During the 04' primary I had a complaint filed against my campaign. I was running a phone bank, part of the calls where made before the Aug.18 pre-primary reporting deadline. The balance of the phone bank was after that date. I was billed for the bank, paid the bill and recorded the payment in the post primary report, the next report required.

"Clean" elections called that a violation. Their interpretation of the rules are payment is due at the time the service is contracted for. I was fined $3500 for the violation. During a pre hearing settlement I negotiated a $500 settlement with the commissioner. That commissioner then took that $500 settlement back to the "star chamber" and voted against her own negotiated settlement and increased my settlement to $1000.

In Nappy's case she contracted for the web site before she had any money from "clean" elections. This is clearly a violation. If she is not fined this will show that clean elections is still biased in favor of the left.

Ron Gould

May 5, 2006

Today, of course, is the national holiday celebrating the invention of the Margarita.

I'll say it again, Clean Elections Empowers Conservatives.

Bob Robb and I have been pointing out for some time that the only group that seems to have been significantly empowered by Clean Elections is social conservatives.

The Republican Wing of the Republican Party had long been relegated to the fringe because they could organize the activists, but they never raised a dime. Now they have equal money and a core of passionate supporters.

The left is finally starting to take notice. Here's Tucson Weekly's Jim Nintzel in "The Skinny." Be sure to read the last two paragraphs

GOP gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil is the first Republican to file for Clean Elections dollars. Thanks to a strong grassroots organization he built while leading the Center for Arizona Policy, a right-leaning Christian lobbying organization, Munsil applied for public funding last week. If everything turns out OK, he should get a check for $453,849 for spending in the primary.

That's probably more than Munsil could have raised had he gone the traditional route of asking for contributions, which shows how Clean Elections has really changed Arizona politics: It's empowered Republican conservatives.

Consider the Arizona Legislature: In the 2004 primaries, the GOP moderates who got knocked out of their seats were beaten by social conservatives who were funded by Clean Elections dollars. The winners would have never raised that kind of money without public dollars and would have been crushed by moderate, business-friendly Republicans who would now be making less noise about illegal immigration, abortion and government in general.

Let's face it: The Democrats getting elected to office don't differ appreciably from the Democrats who were getting elected before Clean Elections came into play. But the Republicans who are winning are radicalizing the Capitol. Wonder if the folks behind Clean Elections imagined that would happen when they ran their initiative?

Spell Check Nightmare

I love spell check. That's because, I like, can't spell. Frankly, my grammar's not so hot either. Since I don't have an editor, and I post late at night, I'm always afraid that I'll post an entry that has, say, "affect" instead of "effect" or "it's" instead of "its."

I once posted an entry and as I was drifting off to sleep, I realized that I had left the first "L" out of the phrase "Public Policy Debate."

But my biggest fear is the spell check default. Sometimes you can make a mistake and it still fits...Jeff Groscost for example defaults to Jeff "Grossest", that fits well enough that you will just think I'm being cute.

In the Clean Elections article that I reference above, Jim Nintzel has this spell check default meltdown.

One Republican who isn't chasing $5 contributions is Mike Harris, the self-described "physical conservative" who plans...

That's right, it's the "Physical" Conservatives who scare me. I don't know how big Mike Harris is, but Ron Gould would break me like a twig.

Of course, there are certain "physical moderates" whom I avoid as well. If you get my drift.

Update: Len Munsil emailed me and said that Harris does indeed mispronounce "fiscal" and often refers to himself as a "physical" conservative. I guess Jim Nintzel is better at spell check than I am.

An indisputably True Statement from the White House

"I'm saying that not only was that suggestion absurd, but that he couldn't possibly sing the national anthem in Spanish. He's not that good with his Spanish," McClellan said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the assertion did not ring true to him because, "The president speaks Spanish, but not that well."

Come on, the guy can't read English from a Teleprompter. Does anyone believe that he could really sing the national anthem in Spanish?

May 4, 2006

Where Did you Get the Drugs Jimmy?

Sheriff Joe's Report on the arrest of Senate Candidate Jim Pederson's son is out. Actually the report has been out for over a month, but you aren't likely to read about it in the newspapers.

Too bad. The report reads like a sequel to the movie Pulp Fiction. There is a large mirrored table in the shape of Playboy Bunny that could be straight out of the Paramount Studios prop department. The report tells of hollow pens used as drug paraphernalia, cocaine residue, OxyContin pills, and a Glock under the couch cushions.

We also discover how the sheriff learned about Jimmy Pederson's alleged drug issues. It seems that Jimmy has a friend named Matt and Matt's mother was very concerned about her son.

Sara told us her son Matt was using Oxycontin and possibly Prozac and that he received the drugs from his long time friend "Jimmy Pederson". Sara wanted her son to participate with us in an investigation against Pederson. She said Pederson was living in the area of 15th avenue and Glendale in Phoenix and that he was using and possibly supplying/dealing drugs.

The tip turned out to be accurate. Sheriff's deputies stopped the younger Pederson for failure to signal a lane change and asked to search his truck. They found enough evidence that they requested to search his house. That's where they found the Quentin Tarantino prop room.

The media has stuck firmly to the adage that the sins of the son don't accrue to the family--at least not if those sins involve drugs and Democrats not brooms and Republicans--so the incident hasn't received much coverage.

Indeed, Senator Jack Harper was pummeled by the media and his fellow Senators for asserting that their might be a "culture of corruption" in the Pederson home.

Harper later apologized (well sort of) to the elder Pederson's wife Roberta, but never to Jim Pederson.

But maybe he apologized too soon...

It turns out that there is a little fact buried in the report that the media either ignored, or failed to find.

The original tip was for Jimmy Pederson...and his mother Roberta.

According to Sara, Pederson was getting drugs from Mexico and his mother "Roberta" was also possibly involved.

Hmm, Sara has been right so far, it's going to be interesting to see what the rest of the investigation brings.

Let's Roll

I saw United 93 last weekend and thought that it was excellent.

May 3, 2006

Revenge of the Sue Nation

Ted Prezelski is reporting that former Republican State Representative John Verkamp is planning to run against Jim Pederson in the Democratic Primary.

"Good Cause" Bias

When someone breaks the rules to advance a cause that the newspapers consider worthy, the reporters look the other way. Here's a great example of "good cause" bias.

The head of Scottsdale’s arts programs said he cannot ethically tell people to vote to increase Scottsdale’s spending limit. But in an e-mail urging thousands of arts supporters to vote in the May 16 election, Frank Jacobson, chief executive officer of the Scottsdale Cultural Council, warned the city’s art programs could be devastated if the measure is defeated.

That's right, Frank Jacobson knows that it would be unethical to tell people how they should vote, so he's just warning supporters that the city’s art programs could be devastated if the measure is defeated.

And the Tribune's response? This glowing article A1 above the fold.

"Have you or anyone you know been seriously injured or killed in an accident?"

Are there any Republicans that Napolitano can work with? If Carolyn Allen is this ticked off, then it's going to be a long session.

Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill Tuesday that aimed to make it more difficult for patients to collect damages in lawsuits against emergency-room personnel.

"She's pretty much saying that 'I'm going to stick with the guys that brung me to the dance," and that's the trial attorneys," said Allen, a Republican with whom Napolitano has worked on issues in the past. "There are fewer and fewer doctors who want to serve in the emergency room because they are scared of being sued. I think there are a lot more doctors, nurses and hospital workers than there are trial attorneys. We'll see what happens."

Here's an interesting letter about Pederson's Immigration Plan

Greg

I saw this yesterday’s Plugged In: "The idea that workers would voluntarily return to their country of origin is the biggest point of contention with Kyl's plan. The Pederson campaign already has made political hay with a quote from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that said that part of the Kyl bill 'borders on fantasy.'"

If the Kyl bill "borders on fantasy," then McCain-Kennedy, the president's plan, and Jim Pederson's plan also border on fantasy because they propose that workers return to their home country when their work visa expires. And this would be after these "guest" workers have lived and worked here legally for six years, brought in their families, maybe had kids that are now Americans, have their kids in school, own a home, have six years toward qualifying for Social Security, etc.

Given all that, an interesting question to ask Pederson about his plan would be this: "Jim, your plan says that guest workers have to return to their home countries when their 6-year work visas expire. So won't there be a 'massive deportation' at that time? Further, if these workers don't leave when they are supposed to, how do you propose to get them to leave? Will you support rounding them up?" His response will be, "Ahhh, well, ahhh. We won't have to get them to leave because they'll apply for citizenship." Follow-up question: "Then isn't your plan really just citizenship amnesty disguised as a guest worker plan? They are not 'guests' if they never leave, are they?"

Name Withheld

May 2, 2006

Lies travel the world while the truth is putting on its shoes

I was on Sunday Square off last week with Democratic Consultant Bob Grossfeld and E. J. Montini when Grossfeld, apropos of nothin', went off on this diatribe about how Senator Kyl's "deportation plan" couldn't work because the federal government couldn't even get busses for Katrina victims.

That was, of course, utter hogwash, no one has suggested "mass deportations" certainly not Jon Kyl. Then I noticed that Jim Pederson's new commercial talks about "Kyl's deportation plan," and I realized that we had a genuine disinformation campaign in the works.

This afternoon, I was on a conference call with Senator Kyl as well as Le Templar from the Tribune, Dan Nowicki from the Republic and a handful of other media types. I asked Kyl if he thought the "deportation" allegation was part of an intentional disinformation campaign.

Nowicki covered the call better than I did, and he had an excellent follow up question, so I will defer to him for Kyl's answer. Take a second and visit the link. He has a copy of the commercial as well as Kyl's response.

Messing with the Big Dog.

The Political insider has a funny comparison in the Hayworth v. Mitchell race. On March 19th, the Insider pointed out that Hayworth was gathering petition signatures by walking through Mitchell's neighborhood. On April 30th they indicated that turnabout is fair play and that Mitchell was walking door to door in Hayworth's neighborhood. They compared this to dogs marking their territory.

But they failed to point out the big dog. It seems that when Hayworth went to Mitchell's neighborhood, the folks preferred Hayworth.

Quoting Hayworth's camp. "The reception he received was very positive. Apparently Mitchell's neighbors like him as a neighbor, but prefer Hayworth as their congressman."

And when Mitchell went to Hayworth's neighborhood? Well, it seems that folks in Hayworth's neighborhood preferred...Hayworth.

Quoting Mitchell "He said, 'J.D. lives right around here, you know,' " Mitchell said. "I said, 'I know.' He said that he knew J.D. and was pretty happy with him. I told him that was fine, but I gave him a card, which is what I really wanted to do, anyway."

I know how it feels. I ran against Karl Kunasek for the ACC in 1994 and not only did Karl beat me in my own Legislative District...but he also beat me in my own precinct. Maybe I should have mowed my lawn more often.

Creativity and Ample Parking.

Richard Florida has become something of an economic development cult figure for his theory that the key to quality urban growth is creating an environment that is attractive to "Creative People." Florida further postulates that the so called "Creative Class" is lured by gay bars, grunge bands and independent coffee houses, so creating that type of urban environment isn't just a bohemian dream, it's an economic development strategy.

Urban planners and certain gullible business columnists have completely fallen for these theories. But there's one problem...

Ed Gleaser has studied Florida's work and sees one flaw...

But while I agree with much of Florida’s substantive claims about the real, I end up with doubts about his prescriptions for urban planning. Florida makes the reasonable argument that as cities hinge on creative people, they need to attract creative people. So far, so good. Then he argues that this means attracting bohemian types who like funky, socially free areas with cool downtowns and lots of density. Wait a minute. Where does that come from? I know a lot of creative people. I’ve studied a lot of creative people. Most of them like what most well-off people like—big suburban lots with easy commutes by automobile and safe streets and good schools and low taxes. After all, there is plenty of evidence linking low taxes, sprawl and safety with growth. Plano, Texas was the most successful skilled city in the country in the 1990s (measured by population growth)—it’s not exactly a Bohemian paradise.

May 1, 2006

Here's a Clean Elections letter from someone who should know.

Hi Greg:

I'm on the road, but had to get my Espresso fix.. Interesting comments
regarding salaries being "recurring" expenses. I've been in and out of
every angle of this stuff with Todd Lang because my candidates have been told by Clean Elections that they may NOT sign consulting agreements that pay retainers unless they have and maintain sufficient bank balances to pay the contract in its entirety. Otherwise it is considered debt. I suggested that these sorts of fees should be treated as recurring expenses like rent and cell phone contracts and I made it clear that, since the candidate could terminate at any time, there really wasn't a long-term obligation. What makes it so interesting is that in our conversations, I used hypothetical scenarios involving Napolitano's upcoming campaign to make my point and Todd and one of my examples was almost exactly what Napolitano has done. My point was that when Napolitano hires a campaign manager for $4,000 a month (as an example salary) everyone knows that that person isn't there as a month-to-month employee, but rather for the duration of the campaign. That duration could be 9 or 10 months which would commit nearly all of her campaign's seed money ($48k or so) to be held in reserve to offset the campaign manager's contract. If her media folks, pollsters, or consultants charged retainers or monthly fees (and some do) those would put her over the seed money allowance. The response from Lang was that long-term contracts were considered debt and you had to have the money to cover them, period. As such, Napolitano, like my clients, could not hire those people that way. His recommended fix was a series of one-month deals so that the candidates were never committed to spending more than a small amount. He also conceded my theory that candidates with smaller bank accounts could have weekly or even daily contracts so that their "obligation" was never more than their cash-on-hand.

If Napolitano has long-term contracts signed involving salaries and/or
retainers to staff or consultants, and their total value exceeds her
cash-on-hand at any time, then she is guilty of having campaign debt and/or overspending. At least according to Genevra Richardson and Todd Lang of Clean Elections.

I do note that Jan Florez' comments seem to indicate that one of her rule books says that salaries ARE recurring expenses, which would run counter to all of the direction I and one of my clients have received from the staff at Clean Elections. If the rules have changed, I wish they would tell me, but Todd was very helpful and patient with me and he went to a great deal of trouble to check several times before giving me his ruling, so I would bet that no changes have occurred. Given the explicit Napolitano examples I laid before them (unwittingly predicting the future), Clean Elections' position on this was very clear. No Long-Term Contracts unless you can pay them in their entirety at the time they are signed.

Constantin Querard

Here's Jan Smith Florez with some additional thoughts

Greg:

In Mr. Querard's letter he had some comments about salaries being recurring expenses. Page 60 of the Participating Candidate Guide (10/6/05 edition) indicates that "[r]egularly recurring administrative expenses such as rent, utilities and salaries are NOT considered to be debts until the payment are past due."

Now, one needs to understand that "salary" may be very different from money due under a contract for month-to-month services from an independent contractor. If a campaign truly hires a person, takes the required tax deductions, pays worker's compensation premiums for that person, makes the necessary deposits for the deductions, and such, that person may be a salaried employee. On the other hand, if a person has several clients and receives a monthly amount or is paid pursuant to a bill submitted to the campaign, that person may well be an independent contractor. An independent contractor would probably not fall under the "salaries" exception. There are many indications that are used to distinguish an employee from an independent contractor.

Determining whether a person is an employee or an independent contraction requires a court determination ultimately. And, as I have said, time is fleeting.

So, we'll see how "clean" clean elections will be as the Commission considers Arizona Republican Party's complaint against the Napolitano campaign.

Jan Smith Florez

It seems to me that the two writers are on the same page. Salaries are continuing and consulting contracts aren't. So, if an employee built the website, then there may not be too much accumulation of debt. But if it was a consultant, then the issue will really blow up.

The question is whether or not the consultants who worked on the website and email are employees. My guess is that they are not. The temptation, of course, is to retroactively reclassify them as employees. I have two words for that strategy--Scooter Libby.

Of course, all of this activity was immediately after filing, so her campaign clearly jumped the gun by spending money before she was able to raise her seed money. So the question is the extent of the violation, not the existence of the violation.

Here's Another Letter on the Clean Elections issue.

Greg,

My thoughts on Clean Elections Institute hypocrisy:

The Clean Elections Institute, a non-governmental advocacy group for Arizona's Clean Elections system, states on its website (click here) that one of its missions is to "... act in a watchdog role at the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, the state agency responsible for administration of the Clean Elections system. In this role, we advocate for swift, fair and legally appropriate resolution of enforcement actions brought before commissioners."

However, the Institute's Executive Director Barb Lubin's comments on the Clean Elections complaint made by the Arizona Republican Party against Democrat Governor Janet Napolitano seem far from advocating "swift fair and legally appropriate resolution." Lubin's opinion on the Republican Party complaint appeared in the Arizona Republic (click here). In response to the Republican Party complaint, Lubin said "...she worries about an onslaught of campaign complaints this year. This is going to be a very long campaign season if the complaints are already starting," Lubin said. "The old children's fable about the boy who cried wolf may hold true for the filing of complaints as well."

Apparently when Republicans lodge complaints against Democrat Clean Election Candidates, they are just part of an onslaught of children "crying wolf." Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Name withheld

Here's a letter about McCain's first amendment comments

Greg,

I think that McCain shot himself in the foot - The first Amendment is what keeps government clean! If we don't have free speech to talk about corruption in government - we won't have a clean government.

Ron

April 30, 2006

Hell Freezes Over...Talton Gets it Right.

The truth is that gasoline prices are high and rising because worldwide demand is skyrocketing. When we fill up, you're bidding against hundreds of millions of drivers. Moscow alone has more than 3.2 million registered vehicles.

That we can fill up instead of facing widespread shortages is thanks to the oil companies. These are voluntary transactions, after all. Nobody put a gun to our heads and made us move to the exurbs and buy SUVs.

What, no talk of Dick Cheney conspiracies, blood for oil, right wing power brokers or religious kooks cruising teen girl chat rooms? What does Talton think he is--the business columnist at a major newspaper?

Actually, Talton only gets it half right. He mentions demand, but he forgets about supply. Here's a point out of the Wall Street Journal.

In fact, Mr. Schumer and most of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate--the very crowd shouting the loudest about "obscene" gas prices--have voted uniformly for nearly 20 years against allowing most domestic oil production. They have vetoed opening even a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas production. If there is as much oil as the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, this would increase America's proven domestic oil reserves by about 50%.

They have also voted against producing oil from the Outer Continental Shelf, where there are more supplies by some estimates than in Saudi Arabia. Environmental objections seem baseless given that even the high winds and waves of Hurricane Katrina didn't cause oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. In the 1970s the environmentalists and their followers in Congress even protested building the Alaska pipeline, which today supplies nearly one million barrels of oil a day. If they've discovered some new law of economics in which a fall in output with rising demand can cause a reduction in price, we'd love to hear it.

Hit Counter